Bitemark analysis has anecdotally been used for centuries to identify the perpetrators of violent crimes. Despite its long-standing use in courts across the Western world, the advent of new technologies in forensic science such as DNA analysis has drawn to light numerous examples where innocent men have been convicted of such crimes on the basis of bitemark interpretation by one or more experts. The legal sphere saw the introduction of arguably the most restrictive limitations on expert testimony in the United States in 1993, via the US Supreme Court case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. Yet the extent to which this precedent is adhered to, which calls for assessment of a discipline’s reliability prior to admission as evidence, even in the United States appears minimal. Judges are generally loath to exclude most long-standing forensic identification techniques, including that of bitemark analysis, despite criticism from numerous fronts that many if not all of these disciplines fail to meet any standards articulated by the Daubert precedent. Despite the urging of legal and scientific academics, and despite the obvious similarity to those forensic techniques used in the United States, Australian courts have categorically rejected the relevance of Daubert to expert evidence in this country. The liberal admission of expert testimony appears to be a most jealously guarded facet of our legal system. Australia does not appear likely to adopt precedents that in any way give judges the authority to exclude expert testimony on the grounds of a failure to meet a reliability threshold, particularly when the witness currently meets the requirements for admission as an expert under the relevant sections of the Evidence Act. Yet the answer to whether bitemark analysis is justified, as both a science and tool by which the courts can use for forensic identification purposes is not as straightforward as it seems. The literature supporting the ability of individuals to claim identity from marks made by teeth on human skin is very weak, and combined with a growing history of wrongful convictions from analysis in this manner seems to clearly suggest that the answer to this question is ‘no’. Yet there is also need to assess whether these wrongful conviction cases are indeed reflective of the practice that most odontologists necessarily engage in this country. Anecdotal evidence suggests that these forms of conclusions are comparatively rare in Australia, and retrospective analysis of casework supports the notion that only a relatively small percentage of such cases end in conclusions regarding individual identity. Bitemarks potentially reveal more information regarding the nature of the perpetrator than simply identity, and so their interpretation still plays a useful role in forensic evidence investigations even if not used for that ultimate purpose. Yet even when interpreting injuries without specific regard to identification of the perpetrator, odontologists in Australia have demonstrably drawn conclusions that remain unsupported by any evidence that they are indeed justified. This is perhaps partly due to the lack of objective standards by which bitemarks are assessed, and is further fuelled by the liberal acceptance of expert opinion in Australian courts. Yet expert opinion can be no substitute for logical conclusion. Patterns of admission of expert evidence, at least in Australia, are unlikely to change in the near future, and so we are left with little option but to try and modify the conduct of bitemark analysis so that it remains within the bounds of credible science. Despite the legal fraternity being reluctant to restrict the scope of forensic identification science testimony, including that of bitemark analysis, the odontology profession cannot remain blind to the fact that there are severe flaws in the practice of bitemark analysis and its subsequent interpretation that need to be addressed. Many of the problems that lead to the inherent ‘unreliability’ of bitemark analysis can only be addressed by long-term research projects, and so defining these boundaries of credibility is of prime importance at the current time. Odontology is best served in the immediate term by recognising the limitations associated with the practice of bitemark analysis as a united professional body, before other agencies make potentially damning decisions that we will have little influence over, and which may ultimately lead to the demise of our role as forensic investigators.